Tags

In its June 23, 2001 issue, Time magazine ran a story titled "One Giant Step for Mankind" by Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman. This story was based on a discovery reported in the journal Nature. (12 Jul, 2001) However, the story of Time included obvious errors.

In its June 23, 2001 issue, Time magazine ran a story titled "One Giant Step for Mankind" by Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman. This story was based on a discovery reported in the journal Nature. (12 Jul, 2001) However, the story of Time included obvious errors.

In the story, it was claimed that the fossil named Ardipithecus ramidus Kadabba found in Ethiopia belonged to a subspecies which is supposed to be a human ancestor.

This fossil is suggested to be the half-man half-ape creature evolutionists hoped to find for 150 years and it was presented as if an important component of human evolution was discovered. However, both in Nature (12 July 2001), in which the research results were reported, and in another important scientific journal that gave coverage to the issue, Science (13 July 2001), it is mentioned that there are apparently contradictory interpretations over the fossil among the scientists. In this article, we will dwell on the scientists" comments on the fossil and explain why it drifts the human evolution into a total stalemate rather than providing an evidence for it.

Many contradictions exist about the newly found fossil

Though presented as a link between human and chimpanzee, in his article titled "Return to the Planet of Apes" (Nature; 12 July 2001), Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature, the magazine that reported the results of the research, stated that it would be controversial to define the newfound fossil as a subspecies:

"The designation of A. r. kadabba as a subspecies will be controversial...."

In his criticism, Henry Gee especially stated that the designation of A. r. Kadabba as a subspecies would be wrong. Still however, out of pure evolutionist prejudices, the fossil was specified as a "primitive" hominid and was placed in a gap in the evolutionary family tree.

In his article, Henry Gee also explained why evolutionist interpretations do not reflect the facts. Gee stated that definitive resolutions of the status of these bones could reveal much about the nature, lifestyle and behaviour of these creatures yet none of these could yield to scientifically satisfactory explanations.

"Whether this potential can be fulfilled is another question entirely."

In brief, these facts stated above render that the so-called evolutionary relation between human and chimpanzees groundless.

In the following pages, we shall analyse the contradictions displayed by evolutionist scientists regarding the fossil in question:

1. The bones uncovered were kilometres far away from one another and they were collected on different dates

The fossil uncovered consists of seven pieces of bones and 4 teeth. Time magazine concluded only from a single toe bone that, "this living being could almost certainly walk upright much of the time." Only on the last page of the 8 pages-long story, it was mentioned that this toe bone was uncovered at some 16 kilometres (10 miles) away from other bones. An examination into the original report in Nature reveals a graver picture. It is reported that the bones of Ardipithecus were actually from "11 hominid specimens (which) have been recovered at 5 localities- since 1997." The toe bone, on the other hand, was found in 1999 and is listed .6 million years younger than all the other bones. That is to say, all the uncovered bones did not belong to the same living being and even not to the living beings that existed in the same period. On the basis of these sporadically collected bones, making interpretations about the traits of the living being and trying to place this living being somewhere in the human evolution would be nothing but a non-scientific propaganda.

2. The Tooth Structure of the Fossil Displays Contradictions in the Sense of the Imaginary Evolution Tree:

Bearing morphological similarities to the Ardipithecus ramidus fossil discovered by Tim White (1992), A. r. Kadabba is classified as a subspecies of ramidus. However, the tooth structure of the fossils is problematic for such a classification because the recent fossil uncovered is 1.5 million years older than the fossil reported in 1992. However, as Time reports, 4.4-million-year-old Ramidus" teeth have more ape-like traits than the 5.8 million year old Kadabba. That is to say, the younger fossil"s teeth possess more ape-like traits than the older one. According to the theory of evolution, however, as time passes, ape-like traits have to disappear. This fact, conveyed as an insignificant piece of information by evolutionists, is important in the sense that it presents the inconsistencies inherent in the imaginary ape-human transition.

Donald Johanson, professor of anthropology and director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, expresses the biased classification in question:

"When you put 5.5 million-year-old fossils together with 4.4 million-year-old ones as members of the same species, you"re not taking into consideration that these could be twigs on a tree. Everything"s been forced into a straight line." (Time, 23 July, 2001)

3. This living being is an extinct chimpanzee species

Some evolutionists accept Ardipithecus to be a component of the fictitious link between human beings and chimpanzees. However, Henry Gee states the fossil is more like a chimp than a hominid.

In the journal Science (13 July, 2001), Bernard Wood, a professor of human origins at George Washington University, made the following interpretation regarding the fossil in question:

"It is a mistake to feel that one has to squeeze this [find] into the category of human or chimp ancestor,..."

Time quotes the following from Wood:

"This might be the first example of a creature it"s not possible to label as hominid ancestor or chimp ancestor. But that doesn"t make it the last common ancestor of both. I think it"s going to be very hard to pin the tail on that donkey."

Evolutionists strive to show extinct ape species as the components in the link between man and chimpanzees. The suffix "-pithecus" is latin for "ape". Any fossil named "x-pithecus" is simply a dead x-ape,and provides no evidence for the origin of humans.As for fossil chimpanzees being non-existent, the fossils paraded as human ancestors are infact dead chimpanzees. The most famous "-pithecus" specimen, Lucy (Australopithecus) had a chimp sized brain, chimp shaped rib cage and jaw bone, and arms and legs that indicate it walked like a chimp. It even had a chimp shaped pelvis (Richard Allan & Tracey Greenwood, Primates and Human Evolution in the textbook: Year 13 Biology 1999. Student Resource and Activity Manual, (Biozone International. Printed in New Zealand.) , s. 260)

Consequently, Ardipithecus ramidus Kadabba fossil, as also indicated by Nature, is more like a chimp than a human and has by no means any link to the origins of human.

Confessions Regarding the Origins of Human From Nature Magazine and Evolutionists

The article in Nature magazine (12 July, 2001) by Henry Gee not only reveals the groundlessness of evolutionists" speculations about the Ardipithecus ramidus Kadabba fossil but also shows that the scenario of human evolution has in many respects reached some deadlocks. Some facts stated in this article can be outlined as follows:

1. Molecular Evidence Render Evolutionary Schemes Invalid

That a few bone and tooth fossils, such as the A.r. Kadabba in Ethiopia, can not disclose information regarding the lifestyle of a living being is stated by anthropologists in their scientific publications. In Gee"s article, anthropologists, Mark Collard of London University and Bernard Wood of George Washington University advocate that dental and skeletal traits, which have been so far accepted as basic criteria for reconstructing evolutionary history, "should not be taken as the basis for hominid systematic."

This conclusion was announced in their article issued in American National Sciences Academy publication on 25 April 2000. (How Reliable Are the Human Philogenetics Hypothesis?, PNAS, 25 April 2001, p. 5003) Nature referred to this publication to state that the evolutionary schemes based on the comparisons of bones and teeth were unreliable:

"Dental and skeletal traits conventionally used as the basis for hominid systematics are unreliable guides for reconstructing evolutionary history. Given that bones and teeth are, for practical purposes, all there is to go on, uncertainty is likely to reign for some time, leaving the nature of the latest common ancestor - and the general course of early hominid evolution - as mysterious as ever."

That interpretations based on molecular examinations oppose to exterior similarities seem to concern evolutionists. This situation is interpreted as the "uncertainty" dominant over the paleontology. Henry Gee expresses the final situation of the theory of evolution with the following words:

"... uncertainty is likely to reign for some time, leaving the nature of the latest common ancestor -and the general course of early hominid evolution - as mysterious as ever... the evolutionary relationships remain murky."

The incompatibleness of recent molecular data with biased interpretations and scenarios of evolutionary relationships bothers evolutionists most. Huge molecular differences between the species presented as close relatives by evolutionists refute the evolutionary schemes presented as basic facts of biology for 150 years. Once again, a scientific discovery refutes the theory of evolution.

2. No Transition Fossil Appears Between Chimpanzee and Man

The evolutionary scenario about the human origins is inconsistent in many aspects. There are claims regarding the existence of a transition between human and chimpanzee. Yet, not a single fossil exists to verify the evolution of chimpanzee. Henry Gee from Nature admits that human fossils can not demonstrate the imaginary evolutionary history of human and adds, "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary." As for the chimpanzee fossils, he says; "Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether."

In the same article, evolutionists confess that hominid fossils, claimed to be the ancestors of man, do not follow a primitive-to-advanced sequence. On the contrary, it is stated that they appear suddenly in the fossil records. In the article, the non-existence of "transitional forms", the pieces of evidence upon which evolutionists pinned their hopes for 150 years, is explained with the following analogy:

"Discoveries of fossil hominids are like buses: nothing for a while, then three come along at once."

Henry Gee, makes the following confession about the non-existence of any fossils which would verify the chimpanzee-human link despite all the paleontological excavations:

"Moreover, it remains the case that although hominid fossils are famously rare, the chimpanzee lineage has no fossil record whatsoever."

As is seen, the theory of evolution is being advocated with no evidence whatsoever. That Nature, an evolution-ridden journal accepted as an unquestioned "authority" among scientific circles, gives coverage to confessions admitting this fact can be considered as a noteworthy document demonstrating the collapse of the theory of evolution. Nature explains the reasons why it is impossible to talk about the existence of a point at which the ancestries of extant chimpanzees and humans merged and thus, for the first time, compulsively admitted the scientific facts about this issue.

Every evolutionist claims his/her own discovery to be the "ancestor of human"

The scenario of human evolution abounds with contradictions and no fossil can fill in the gaps in this scenario. The findings presented by popular media are actually nothing but biased speculations of evolutionists on their own findings. An evolutionist paleontologist or anthropologist making a discovery often emerge with the claim that his finding is the ancestor of human. Their blind adherence to the theory of evolution and pursuit for fame render the interpretations on the uncovered fossils more unreliable.

The arguments between the teams who uncovered the Ardipithecus and the fossil named the Millenium Man, which was uncovered in the year 2000, set the recent example. Of this, Science (13 July 2001) makes the following comment:

" The Orrorin and Ardipithecus teams assert that each other"s fossils could represent an ancestor of chimps or other apes, rather than one of our early human ancestors or cousins. Figuring out who"s right is hard." (Science, 13 July 2001, vol 293, p. 188-189)

"The recent findings ... challenge some long-cherished ideas about the mode and timing of hominid evolution," says Brigitte Senut of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, co-leader of the team, which uncovered the Millenium Man.

Time writes the following about the two evolutionist groups that are the discoverers of two distinct fossils:

"The French and Kenyan team that presented a 6 million-year-old fossil last December insists that theirs, known as Orrorin tugenensis (or, more familiarly, Millennium Man because it was announced in 2000), is the true human ancestor and that Ardipithecus is nothing more than a monkey"s uncle-or a chimp"s great-great-grandfather, anyway."

Richard Leakey, the famous evolutionist comments on the newfound fossil:

"If you read their paper, almost everything they say about the teeth suggests it"s more apelike."

An evolutionist paleontologist, Fred Spoor of University College, London, says;

Assertion of individual interpretations on fossils from each evolutionist betokens the predominance of personal views in this field rather than of scientific criteria. This situation is important to show the unreliability of the assertions put forth about the theory of evolution.

Conclusion

As is seen, scientists" interpretations and explanations regarding A. r. Kadabba fossil, proclaimed in the evolutionist press as the "explicit evidence of evolution" and propagated with the catchy slogans such as "the ancestor of man", " the lost component of human evolution", have no scientific value or reliability. However, those, who have no chance to read the original resources or who are devoid of profound knowledge about the theory of evolution assume that "ape ancestors" of man has been really found when they encounter the story in the above mentioned journals.

The advocates of the theory of evolution employ the following fundamental propaganda and brainwashing methods: to release catchy stories elaborated with the so-called scientific evidence and drawings. However, very limited research and an attentive eye would immediately see the unscientific and irrational nature of these stories.